Studies – Breast Cancer

From the beginning, the case for legalizing abortion was a fabrication of lies. As Dr. D. James Kennedy noted in his sermon, “Lies and More Lies,” the Supreme Court was told the number of women who had died from back-alley abortions was 10,000. But Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who presided over the abortion of 60,000 babies until he could no longer live with his conscience, admitted to Dr. Kennedy that this number was pulled out of the air—made up to impress the court. Likewise, the facts of the cases of Norma McCorvey, the “Roe” of Roe v. Wade and Sandra Cano, the “Doe” of Doe v. Bolton, are nothing like the stories their lawyers told to persuade the court. Today the lies continue. Abortionists never refer to the life in the woman’s womb as a “baby.” It is a “product of conception,” “a clump of cells,” or “the fetus.” They falsely assure women they will not experience any long-term consequences from having an abortion and hide information showing that suicide, depression, and complications with future pregnancies are common after-effects of abortion. In addition, the evidence of a clear link between breast cancer and abortion, which has been known for decades, is being ignored or disputed by shoddy research that relies on faulty research designs, as Dr. Joel Brind explains in his March 2015 article in National Review, “Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Stubborn Link Returns.” [i] As Dr. Brind wrote in his article, “The first epidemiological study to show a link between induced abortion and breast cancer was published in 1957.” In 1996, when Brind led a research team that...

The risk of breast cancer among the general population is now close to 12%. Lost in the politics of women’s health and kept away from public debate, there has been medical evidence that abortion is a contributory factor in the increased incidences of breast cancer. The first evidence was published in the April 1957 English edition of the Japanese Journal of Cancer Research. The study, led by Patrick Carroll, looked at breast cancer rates in Britain, Finland, Sweden and the Czech Republic. He found that “Breast cancer incidence has risen in parallel with rising abortion rates. There is no doubt there is a causal relationship” (BBC, p.2). Many studies have failed to ascertain the relationship between abortion and cancer and have failed to distinguish between miscarriages and induced abortions, notes Professor Brind. Since mammalians share similar reproductive systems, the study used rats and examined the terminal end buds (TEB) within the mammary glands where cancer usually occurs. These cells develop for lactation and remain undifferentiated until the end of the pregnancy. Full-term pregnancy resulted in the maturity of TEBs. Prevention of the maturity of these cells led to cancerous cells later. Researchers theorize that this is because during puberty and pregnancy there is excess estrogen available, causing the mammary glands increase in size. The surge of estrogen then leads to the growth of undifferentiated cells in the mammary glands as the body prepares to produce milk. The mechanisms that support estrogen levels are the hormones progesterone, which helps balance estrogen – especially after pregnancy; and melatonin which reduces excess estrogen. All normal mammary glands have estrogen receptors and in...

October is breast cancer awareness month and it is certain that retail outlets, grocery stores and coffee shops will be sporting the pink ribbons. Donations will be taken for breast cancer research. Do you know where your donation is going? Trusted research from the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer, has shown that Abortion is linked to Breast Cancer. Its called the ABC Link. Yet, Cancer Research Organizations have been known to donate to Planned Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the U.S. Think before you pink this October! Learn the facts. This is a good place to start — http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/FAQ/ Research all breast cancer organizations. Ensure that your donation will not feed organizations that keep the cycle of breast cancer going by supporting abortion. Spread the word by educating others with our Abortion & Breast Cancer fact sheet — http://humanlife.org/product/breast-cancer/?utm_source=Breast+Cancer+Awareness+Month&utm_campaign=Breast+Cancer+Awareness+Month&utm_medium=email Watch and share this video that explains the link between abortion and breast cancer — ...

Last year I wrote in the BCPI Report about the veritable tsunami of Asian studies — largely from China and South Asia — that have sadly confirmed that the Abortion-Breast Cancer link (ABC link) is real and spreading to Asia, with a predictably staggering impact on millions of Asian women. Meanwhile, Western medical authorities have totally ignored this new body of research, continuing to rely upon flawed “recent” research that dates back a decade and more. That has not changed, but what has newly appeared — in both Chinese and Indian research — is a Western style broom that would sweep the evidence under the proverbial rug. In China, the 2013 meta-analysis of 36 Chinese studies by Yubei Huang, et al. confirmed what we had reported in our meta-analysis of worldwide ABC link research in 1996 — an overall 30% increased breast cancer risk among women who’d had any abortions. But they reported a larger risk increase of 44% which went up with two abortions, and to 89% for women with 3 or more abortions. Even more compelling was the Huang study’s inclusion of a meta-regression analysis, which explained why, in some studies where the prevalence of abortion was so high that most women had had at least one, the ABC link was masked by the lack of a proper comparison group. Huang et al. even cited — with proper attribution — the explanation for this anomaly which I had published in 2004. However, 3 months ago, in the same prestigious journal — Cancer Causes and Control — that published Huang’s 2013 meta-analysis, also published an “updated systematic review...

http://justiceforkids.webs.com/abortioncancerscore.htm From 1 Jan. 2005 to mid July 2015 (10 years + 6 1/2 months) there are 47 statistically significant Breast-Cancer/Abortion (ABC) studies. For those who are “keeping score”, in this 2005-2015 time period, presently, there are internationally: — 2 significant studies which find that Abortion cuts/decreases the Breast-Cancer risk — 45 significant studies which find that Abortion boosts/increases the Breast-Cancer risk To view the bibliography of all studies, visit: http://justiceforkids.webs.com/abortioncancerscore.htm As an analogy, “if the Boston Red Sox have 45 runs and the N.Y. Yankees have 2 runs and it is the top of the ninth inning, MOST announcers will acknowledge that the Red Sox are well ahead”. The latest study (July 2015) considers women subjects in IRAQ. All these 2005-2015 ABC studies can be found at:...

A new study indicates that either delaying a first pregnancy until after the age of 30 or having an abortion raises a woman’s risk of contracting breast cancer. Biochemical researchers at Georgia Regents University revealed yesterday that they have found that the gene DNMT1 which is essential to maintaining breast, or mammary, stem cells, that enable normal rapid growth of the breasts during pregnancy, also produces stem cells that may enable breast cancer. They explained that mammary stem cells help maintain the breasts during puberty as well as pregnancy, both periods of dynamic breast cell growth. During pregnancy, breasts may generate 300 times more mammary cells as they prepare for milk production. This mass production may also include tumor cells, a mutation that seems to increase with age. The researchers pointed out that when the fetus is lost before term, immature cells that were destined to become breast cells, can more easily become cancer. The researchers pointed out that while the exact reasons remain unclear, there is an increased risk of breast cancer if the first pregnancy occurs after age 30 as well as in women who lose their baby during pregnancy or have an abortion. “While the exact reasons remain unclear, there is an increased risk of breast cancer if the first pregnancy occurs after age 30 as well as in women who lose their baby during pregnancy or have an abortion. Women who never have children also are at increased risk, while multiple term pregnancies further decrease the risk, according to the American Cancer Society,” the researchers said in a statement. The head of a British pro-life...

Consider “Alice” who is pregnant for the first time at age 20 years. Would it be all right if Alice terminates this pregnancy and eventually has a first birth, at say, age 35 years? Stein and Susser would have to agree that, in general, such a decision is fine and healthy. I would argue that when Alice signs the consent form for the termination, she should be informed that delaying her pregnancy by 10 to 15 years substantially increases her relative breast cancer risk. A 15-year delay in first full-term pregnancy increases relative breast cancer risk by 67.3% (absolute increase: 8.41%).2 Krieger wrote, “Conversely, early age at first full-term pregnancy consistently has emerged as the strongest protective factor [against breast cancer].”3 A 10-year delay in age at first full-term pregnancy by terminating earlier pregnancy increases relative breast cancer risk by 41% (absolute increase: 5.13%). PRETERM BIRTH RISK Barbara Luke and Judith Lumley, recognized authorities in the field of premature births, have identified induced abortion as a risk factor for prematurity.4,5 In her book on preventing prematurity, Luke discusses her belief that induced abortion leads to an “incompetent cervix,” 4 whereas Lumley believes that induced abortion causes intrauterine infection and subsequent prematurity.5 In 1992, Daling et al reported that women with previous induced abortions had a 140% elevated risk of intra-amniotic infection in subsequent pregnancies.6 To my knowledge, at least 16 studies show that previous induced abortions boost risk of prematurity.5,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 Therefore, an elective procedure that Stein and Susser sanction increases the risks of both breast cancer and subsequent preterm birth.22 INFORMED MEDICAL CONSENT In both the United States and...

In a press release [7 Apr 2015, http://www.acpeds.org/know-your-abcs-the-abortion-breast-cancer-link — see below], the American College of Pediatricians urged health care providers to educate young women about the strong link between abortion and breast cancer. In late 2013, Dr. Rebecca Johnson, a cancer specialist at Seattle Children’s Hospital, released results of a study that demonstrated that the number of advanced breast cancer cases has increased among younger women, aged 25-39 years. After an analysis of 34 years worth of data from many countries, Johnson and her colleagues found that induced abortion was likely a causal–not correlational–risk factor for the development of breast cancer. The pediatricians group also revisits the fact that studies from China, India, and Romania show incidence of breast cancer increasing as the number of abortions increase, with a “dose effect” demonstrating “an increasing risk of breast cancer with each subsequent abortion.” Recent College President Dr. Den Trumbull states, “When one considers the normal anatomy and physiology of the breast it becomes clear that this link is causal, not merely correlational.” Though the data show that abortion prior to 32 weeks of pregnancy by itself is a risk factor for breast cancer because abortion interferes with the maturation of breast cells, the medical community and the main stream media have largely ignored the issue. For example, a brief article about Johnson’s study at Yahoo.com mentioned that advanced breast cancer cases have “increased slightly among young women,” but the article did not discuss the link to abortion. Instead, it stated the outcome raised “many questions about possible reasons even as the disease remains uncommon in women younger than 40.” Despite...

This is a rebuttal by Brind to a new counter-analysis of a recent Chinese ABC Link meta-analysis. It took just over a year—after a new meta-analysis of Chinese abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) studies corroborated the link between having an induced abortion and a heightened risk of breast cancer—for a new Chinese meta-analysis to attempt to throw cold water on the link. In this instance, it’s a study by Dr. Jun Guo and colleagues at university hospitals in Hubei and Beijing, China. NRL News readers may recall my piece at the end of 2013, wherein I reported on the new meta-analysis by Dr. Yubei Huang, et al. of the Tianjin Medical University in China. (A meta-analysis is a study that pools the results of many studies, thus increasing the overall statistical power to find a significant result.) Huang reported an overall 44% increase in breast cancer risk associated with induced abortion, even greater than the overall 30% increase I and my colleagues had reported in our 1996 meta-analysis. The study also showed a “dose” effect (more abortions resulting in even greater risk than does one abortion). But what gave the Huang study even more clout was that it provided a compelling “meta-regression analysis” which demonstrated why certain studies in China (Shanghai, specifically) had failed to show the ABC link: abortion was so common in these populations the link was masked by the inability to find an appropriate comparison group of unaborted women. Moreover, in explaining this last phenomenon, Huang et al. quoted extensively from my 2004 published letter on the ABC link in China. I had wondered just what...

A new systematic review and meta-analysis of abortion and breast cancer (ABC link) in China, was just published in November, 2013 in the prestigious, peer-reviewed international cancer journal, “Cancer Causes and Control”. It showed that the overall risk of developing breast cancer among women who had one or more induced abortions was significantly increased by 44%. In this meta-analysis (a study of studies in which results from many studies are pooled), Dr. Yubei Huang et al. combined all 36 studies that have been published through 2012 on the ABC link in China. Also in peer-reviewed journals in 2013, Dr. Ramchandra Kamath et al. reported an odds ratio (a measure of relative risk) of 6.38 and Dr. A.S. Bhadoria et al. reported a relative risk of 5.03, i.e., a 5-fold—or 403%–increased risk of getting breast cancer among Indian women who have had any abortions. Not only are these relative risks much stronger than had been reported anywhere before (e.g., the 1.44 reported by Huang et al. in China and the 1.3 reported by my colleagues and I in our worldwide meta-analysis of 1996), but also in 2013, Dr. S. Jabeen and colleagues reported a relative risk of 20.62 among women in Bangladesh. These new Asian studies change the game in ABC link research, and should completely abolish any credibility of the “politically correct” dictum of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI; a federal agency like the IRS and the NSA) that the ABC link is nonexistent. Several reasons for this can be enumerated: The Huang meta-analysis reproduces and validates our findings from 1996, even showing a slightly stronger link (1.44...

http://www.lifenews.com/2015/03/03/abortion-advocates-continue-denying-scientific-studies-showing-abortion-breast-cancer-link/ Abortion and Breast Cancer: The Stubborn Link Returns New studies show an alarming rate of the disease among women who have had abortions. Prominent abortion practitioner and promoter David Grimes bemoans that bumper stickers still warn that abortion increases the risk of breast cancer, even though, he asserts, that “theory . . . was debunked long ago.” So begins Grimes’s recent piece on the Huffington Post’s blog Healthy Living. “Long ago” was, though Grimes doesn’t say so, 1997 to 2008, when there flowed a stream of “debunking” publications — largely studies that were methodologically flawed — reporting that no abortion–breast cancer (ABC) link existed. They were effective in fading the ABC link from public consciousness. But now the ABC link has returned, stubbornly, provoking renewed efforts to debunk it. Being real, the ABC link is showing up, conspicuously, as millions of women worldwide who have had abortions over the past several decades are coming down with breast cancer at alarmingly increased rates. Dozens of papers are being published that show the trend. Grimes does not acknowledge the recent studies, however, relying rather on the discredited arguments of “long ago” — and some clever sleight of hand — in his … attempt to disprove the link. The first epidemiological study to show a link between induced abortion and breast cancer was published in 1957. In 1996, a research team I headed up published a comprehensive review and meta-analysis of worldwide research on the subject — some 23 studies. Our finding of a statistically significant, 30 percent increase in breast cancer among women who had had an abortion prompted a...

ABORTION AND BREAST CANCER: ONLY FUZZY MATH CAN MAKE THE ABC LINK DISAPPEAR [Joel Brind, Ph.D. 8Apr04] A supposedly definitive study of immense statistical power, published in a top medical journal, has once again [tried to prove] the abortion-breast cancer link (ABC link) nonexistent. This time [25Mar04] it was "a collaborative reanalysis of data from 53 epidemiological studies, including 83,000 women with breast cancer from 16 countries". It was authored by a prestigious group of Oxford researchers, and published in the Lancet, one of the most prominent medical journals in the world…To say that the Beral study is seriously flawed and that its conclusions do not stand up to close scrutiny is to understate seriously the magnitude of what is really going on here. For starters, the claim that this is a "full analysis" is flatly false. Let's just do the simple math. We start with 41 studies which showed data on induced abortion and breast cancer, dating as far back as 1957. Then how do we get to 53 studies? (Actually, the total is 52 studies.) We add 11 studies worth of unpublished data, right? That might be okay, but it wasn't what was done. What Beral et al. actually did was: **Throw out 2 studies for the scientifically appropriate reason that "specific information on whether pregnancies ended as spontaneous or induced abortions had not been recorded systematically for women with breast cancer and a comparison group." Specifically, one such study from Sweden in 1989 used general population statistics for comparison, instead of a control group, and one US study from 1993 ascertained abortions only indirectly, by subtracting the...

[Editor’s note. This appeared at Reproductive Research Audit. What follows first is RRA’s introduction to Dr. Davenport’s essay.] Reproductive Research Audit [ http://reproductiveresearchaudit.com/ ] covers studies that address the most controversial topics in reproductive health research, including the long-disputed (but recently affirmed) link between induced abortion and preterm birth, the contested link between induced abortion and breast cancer (ABC link), and the suppression of studies that suggest abortion may contribute to problems in mental health. RRA covers these topics not just in spite of widespread hostility toward researchers and suppression of these findings, but due to the fact that such persecution and censorship is contrary to standards of scientific discourse and intellectual honesty. Today RRA welcomes this guest post from Dr. Mary Davenport who not only expands upon research in these areas but offers her personal account of such censorship in the medical community. This information is even more timely in light of this most recent study that found a 2.8 fold increase in breast cancer risk in relation to induced abortion. RRA is grateful to Dr. Davenport for sharing her article which first appeared at The American Thinker. In the U.S. we are used to abortion advocates claiming that the risk of elective abortion is relatively trivial, and major medical organizations denying any link between abortion and breast cancer. Now a powerful new study from China published [in February 2014] by Yubei Huang and colleagues suggests otherwise. The article, a meta-analysis pooling 36 studies from 14 provinces in China, showed that abortion increased the risk of breast cancer by 44% with at least one abortion, and 76% with...

Does Abortion Cause Breast Cancer ? Yes, it does. Is Abortion Linked to Breast Cancer? Yes. Does Induced Abortion Increase Breast Cancer Risk ? Yes. In fact, the National Cancer Institute in the U.S.A. accidentally admitted induced abortion is associated with elevated breast cancer risk in April 2009. What Are Risk Factors For Breast Cancer ? Answer: Induced abortion & hormonal contraceptive There are now at least 10 breast cancer research papers published very recently in years 2009 – 2014 which state in their findings that induced abortion is linked to elevated breast cancer risk. This blog focuses on the 10 most recent studies from 2009 – 2014 although in the past 5 decades, there have been approximately 50 studies linking abortion to breast cancer. Here is a list of epidemiologic studies investigating induced abortion and breast cancer risk: http://www.bcpinstitute.org/epidemiology_studies_bcpi.htm 1st Breast Cancer Research Paper (Year 2009) Linking Abortion To Breast Cancer: Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research & National Cancer Institute stated abortion is linked to elevated breast cancer risk in a 2009 published research paper titled, "Risk Factors For Triple-Negative Breast Cancer In Women Under The Age of 45 Years." Study was published in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention Journal 2009: 18 (4) April 2009. Line 3-5 at the top left column of page 1163 in Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prevention Journal, the study clearly concludes, "…..induced abortion & contraceptive use were associated with increased risk for breast cancer." The last row of Table 1 on page 1158 also states a single abortion raises breast cancer risk by 40% In this paper, the authors list in Table 4: Multivariate adjusted case-control...

Younger Women Face Higher Rates of Breast Cancer Thanks to Abortion Scientific studies from around the world show that younger women, specifically those between the ages of 25 and 39, are increasingly being diagnosed with aggressive breast cancer—which has often spread further in the body by the time of diagnosis. A study on cancer rates in Geneva, Switzerland, published in 2007 in the British Journal of Cancer [Recent Increase of Breast Cancer Incidence Among Women Under the Age of Forty — http://www.nature.com/bjc/journal/v96/n11/full/6603783a.html] found that breast cancer in this age group of women increased at the alarming rate of 46.7% per year from 2002 to 2004. An analysis of breast cancer epidemiology in the United States noted a similarly accelerating diagnosis of metastatic breast cancer beginning in 1976 and extending to the last year for which data was available, 2009. The American findings, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) in February 2013 [Incidence of Breast Cancer With Distant Involvement Among Women in the United States, 1976 to 2009 — http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1656255], noted that this trend was not seen in older women diagnosed with breast cancer. The authors did not speculate on any specific causes of this increase, instead attributing it to a vague multifactor etiology. They did make it clear that the results measured a true increase in the incidence of breast cancer and were not simply the outcome of better diagnostic techniques. British researchers affiliated with the organization Cancer Research UK reported [ http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2013/may/03/breast-cancer-increase-younger-women ]that between 1993 and 2010 there was an 11% growth in the incidence of breast cancer in women under the age of...

Mounting Evidence Confirms Breast Cancer Incidence Decline Due to Decline in HRT Use We will be seeing a lot of PINK in the next few months as the Breast Cancer Research fundraising “businesses” attempt to raise millions to “find a cure.” From corporate and product endorsement, to neighborhood walks, relays, and social events – pink is the theme and somewhat of a scheme. The obvious problem is that all of these so-called women’s-health organizations are loathe to inform women of the politically-incorrect risk factors that scientists have reported upon, such as the risks caused by abortion, steroidal-laced contraceptives, the advantage of early age pregnancies and breast feeding, and the dangers of hormonal replacement therapy [HRT]. The following is an article written by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, M.D., F.A.C.S., President of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute http://www.bcpinstitute.org/home.htm, breast surgical oncologist and co-director of the Steeplechase Cancer Center’s Breast Program [New Jersey], which confirms the fact that women are not being told the facts about Hormone Replacement Therapy for women over 50 years of age. Don’t menopausal women have the right to know? Arlene Sawicki is the Vice-President of the Coalition on Abortion Breast Cancer www.AbortionBreastCancer.com. [May 14, 2011 By Arlene Sawicki, http://www.championnews.net/blog/2011/05/14/mounting-evidence-confirms-breast-cancer-incidence-decline-due-to-decline-in-hrt-use/] Breast Cancer Res > v.12(1); 2010 > PMC2880418 Breast Cancer Res. 2010; 12(1): 103. Published online 2010 February 12. doi: 10.1186/bcr2463 PMCID: PMC2880418 Recent Declines in Breast Cancer Incidence: Mounting Evidence that Reduced Use of Menopausal Hormones is Largely Responsible Emily Banks corresponding author1 and Karen Canfell2,3 Abstract Substantial reductions in breast cancer incidence in women 50 years old or older have been observed recently in many developed countries,...

Study Shows Abortion Linked to High Breast Cancer Risk A study in the Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention shows abortion increases the risk of breast cancer for women. C. Yanhua of the First Peoples’ Hospital of Kunming in Yunnan province and his colleagues found the abortion-breast cancer association after comparing data from 263 cases of breast cancer and 457 controls without the disease. Their analysis covers the years 2009-2011 — http://www.apocpcontrol.org/paper_file/issue_abs/Volume13_No5/2179-84%204.17%20Che%20Yanhua.pdf The authors examined information on disease diagnosis, demographics, medical history, and reproductive characteristics of the patients involved and also looked at short menstrual cycle, old age at first live birth, never breastfeeding, history of oral contraceptive use, postmenopausal status and nulliparity to determine in abortion-breast cancer link exists. They write that “multivariate model analysis revealed the significant independent positive associations with breast cancer of shorter menstrual cycle, older age at first live birth, never breastfeeding, history of oral contraception experience, increased number of abortion, menopause status, and nulliparities.” “Number of abortion showed an increasing higher risk of breast cancer,” they added, while saying that women who had one live birth lowered their risk. “As far as women who had once a live birth, it showed decreased the risk of breast cancer compared to nulliparous.” “This study showed an increased risk of breast cancer with times of abortion. The association between abortion and risk of breast cancer in a study in China showed that the risk factors of female breast cancer included abortion times more than two (Li et al., 2006),” they continued. “Another study found that risk was raised among women reporting at least one abortion, but...

Vital Signs: Racial Disparities in Breast Cancer Severity — United States, 2005–2009 On November 14, 2012, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). Abstract Background: Breast cancer death rates have been declining among U.S. women since 1990 because of early detection and advances in treatment; however, all racial groups have not benefited equally. Methods: Breast cancer incidence, stage at diagnosis, and mortality rates for 2005–2009 for women in the United States and for each state were calculated using United States Cancer Statistics (USCS) data. Black to white mortality ratios and mortality to incidence ratios by race were calculated. Results: Despite having lower incidence rates, black women had a 41% higher breast cancer death rate. More black women were diagnosed at regional or distant cancer stage compared with white women (45% versus 35%). For every 100 breast cancers diagnosed, black women had nine more deaths than white women (27 deaths per 100 breast cancers diagnosed among black women compared with 18 per 100 among white women). Conclusions: Despite significant progress in breast cancer detection and treatment, black women experience higher death rates even though they have a lower incidence of breast cancer compared to white women… Breast cancer remains a significant public health challenge. It is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among US women. Although breast cancer deaths have declined over the last 2 decades, it remains the second leading cause of cancer deaths among women (1). It is estimated that approximately half of this decrease has resulted from advances in treatment and early detection (2). However, not all racial groups have benefited...

Article below is followed by Abstract and part of the Discussion section of the Full BMJ Text [Comment: Medscape is definitely not prolife so this article is even more amazing. N Valko RN] The Pill and Prostate Cancer: Is There a Link? Countries where oral contraceptive use among women is high appear to have correspondingly higher rates of prostate cancer, according to a study published online [http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/1/2/e000311.full] November 14 in BMJ Open. Several recent studies have suggested that estrogen exposure increases the risk for prostate cancer, David Margel, MD, from the Princess Margaret Hospital, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, told Medscape Medical News. This could be because the residue of estrogen ends up in the water supply and the food chain, he said. "We believe that this is due to an environmental effect," Dr. Margel said. "These oral contraceptives contain a small amount of estrogenic compounds, which are not biodegradable and are excreted in the urine. Although each woman takes these compounds at very minimal doses, when millions of women take them, and for a long period of time, there may be some effect on the environment." Together with coauthor Neil E. Fleshner, MD, head of the division of urology at the University of Toronto Health Sciences Center, Dr. Margel decided to examine this association in an ecological study. They used data from the International Agency for Research on Cancer to examine age-standardized rates of prostate cancer in 2007, and data from the United Nations World Contraceptive Use 2007 report to determine the proportion of women taking the birth control pill or using other means of contraception, including condoms,...